Adventists Monitor Contraception Debate

[CGMedley]

The recent moves by the federal government to mandate provision of contraception in employer-provided health care is drawing a cautious look from religious liberty experts in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Read more.

http://www.adventistreview.org/article/5...eption-mandates

[doug yowell]

I wonder why the guarded public response? Every one knows that it's the progressive government doing what they excel at, trying to force the unwilling to do what they (progressives) know is best for society even if it conflicts with their (religious)moral beliefs.And this just weeks after the Hosanna case.No new tactic just more blatant this time.Maybe they've still got one eye on the Bush administration's, potentially constitution obliterating,FBI program?

[teresaq]

The devil is very subtle. We have been setup to need healthcare in our society and now we get these issues. While people shouldn't be forced to go against their consciences, women still have the right to the same kind of insurance they would get elsewhere.

[Jeannieb43]

The recent moves by the federal government to mandate provision of contraception in employer-provided health care is drawing a cautious look from religious liberty experts in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The operative words are "mandate provision of contraception". The Catholic church has no right to prevent free choice for their parishioners by failing to offer such coverage to those who choose to use it.

In other words, freedom of choice for every person is what SDAs should be promoting. It's not a sin to use contraception, even though the Catholic church preaches against it. In a free country such as the U.S., that church cannot prevent freedom of choice for their parishioners by removing the ability to obtain such insurance coverage if the parishioners so choose.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: CGMedley

The recent moves by the federal government to mandate provision of contraception in employer-provided health care is drawing a cautious look from religious liberty experts in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The operative words are "mandate provision of contraception". The Catholic church has no right to prevent free choice for their parishioners by failing to offer such coverage to those who choose to use it.

In other words, freedom of choice for every person is what SDAs should be promoting. It's not a sin to use contraception, even though the Catholic church preaches against it. In a free country such as the U.S., that church cannot prevent freedom of choice for their parishioners by removing the ability to obtain such insurance coverage if the parishioners so choose.

You're missing the point. Since when is it the government's responsibility to mandate that private organizations be compelled to provide that to which they are morally opposed? Since when is contraception now a moral right? And how does that which allows sex without consequence suddenly morph into a "health" care issue? ANd why is it the Catholic Church's duty to insure that my daughter can have unfettered sex outside of marriage without getting pregnant while working for one of their institutions?

[doug yowell]

Quote:

The operative words are "mandate provision of contraception". The Catholic church has no right to prevent free choice for their parishioners by failing to offer such coverage to those who choose to use it.

How does the non-inclusion of contraception interfere with a woman's ability to choose to purchase it on her own? It doesn't.Contraception is relatively cheap and has been easily affordable to women for decades.Why attempt to force the RCC into providing that which it opposes on moral grounds if the same result(non-pregnancy) can easily be affordable elsewhere?

Quote:

In other words, freedom of choice for every person is what SDAs should be promoting.

Nonsense! Freedom of choice also allows for evil and destructive choices which other people can morally oppose, right or wrong.SDA's have,and should, never promote choices which are morally or physically destructive to society. Your logic should also apply to SDA institutions. According to your reasoning, SDA's should not prevent the inclusion of elective abortions, and sex change operations in their health plans. They should be required to allow for unrestricted Sabbath employment,and serve alcohol and meat in their places of employment.Nor should they be allowed to require that any of their employees or students not engage in otherwise legal practices.

Quote:

It's not a sin to use contraception, even though the Catholic church preaches against it.

We believe that but the RCC doesn't. Do we now have the right to force them to act against their conscience on a matter(birth control) that we(not them)all agree is not a moral matter?

Quote:

In a free country such as the U.S., that church cannot prevent freedom of choice for their parishioners by removing the ability to obtain such insurance coverage if the parishioners so choose.

Apparently you feel the obligation to demand that the church now be subject to governmental(and your)oversight in what they can and can't determine is morally right and wrong. This is the very reason why the US Constitution was amended to keep the authorities separate.Your statement is a direct attack on the freedoms that you claim to respect.